Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Pope Francis has asked Oil Executives to a meeting, to come up with a plan to solve climate change and the world’s growing energy needs.
Pope Francis to Discuss Climate Change With Oil Company CEOs
By Kelly Gilblom and John Follain
2 June 2018, 01:28 GMT+10 Updated on 2 June 2018, 03:04 GMT+10
Oil company bosses will travel to the Vatican next week to discuss climate change with Pope Francis.
The meeting will be on June 8 and June 9 at the Casina Pio IV villa in the Vatican, with an audience with the Pope on the second day, according to a spokesman. It is being organized by a department headed by Cardinal Peter Turkson, who helped write Pope Francis’ 2015 encyclical on climate.
“We look forward to the dialogue, and the opportunity to discuss how we can address climate change and opportunities in the energy transition,” a spokesman for Equinor ASA, Norway’s largest oil company, said in an emailed statement on Friday.
…
“We’re hopeful that this kind of dialogue can help develop solutions to the dual challenge of managing the risks of climate change while meeting growing demand for energy, which is critical to alleviating poverty and raising living standards in the developing world,” Exxon said in an emailed statement. The company didn’t say if its CEO or senior executives will attend the meeting.
…
Can anyone think of a more fanatically green company than Google?
Back in 2014, top Google Engineers gave up on their project to find an economical way to convert the world to renewable energy, after they worked out that even fantasy innovations like self assembling wind turbines failed to make renewables economically viable.
It just can’t be done. There is no zero carbon solution to the world’s energy needs available with current technology, other than the solution greens don’t like to talk about.
If the problem was immoral opposition to renewables for selfish reasons, the Pope’s intervention would make sense. The Pope has substantial influence, many millions of people look to the Pope for moral guidance. But even the his holiness cannot bend the Laws of Physics.
Catholic NGO relief charaties, run by Jesuits, are in line to get some the Paris COP agreed Climate Aid Fund, with kickbacks to Rome. That was the price for getting the Vaticans support for the Paris deal.
Follow the money.
And there it is…. socialist snouts in the public feeding trough.
The ‘trougherati,’ as someone here once called them.
Third world countries, which stand to receive up to a trillion $ over time, are the RC’s “growth market” and lots of new cardinals are coming thence. If the pope were noncommittal or skeptical about climate change, like Benedict, it would play badly in those countries for decades.
Its a constitutional issue then – separation of church and state.
Francis will do a silent collection – the oil execs are just not prepared!
Lots of churches are very active in helping people that need help. Here’s some financial information on the Salvation Army (yes, it is a church). The Roman Catholic church is also very active in charitable works.
On the other hand … there’s this idiot.
The Roman Catholic church is also very active in charitable works.
============
Do good deeds excuse sin? Is the church buying forgiveness?
Why does it collect money worldwide from the poorest of the poor?
Why is it one of the wealthiest organizations on earth?
Why would an active charity have a surplus of wealth? Are there shortages of people in need?
The church collects money under the threat of everlasting damnation. If you or I did this we would quickly end up in jail for extortion or racketeering.
I’ve always been amazed by people who know absolutely nothing about a subject to proclaim themselves experts in the subject.
The thing I like most about that article about the televangelist wanting a bigger plane for his ministry is the picture of him showing off his pictures of other planes they own.
Look close at those pics. And prepare to be beamed up.
^¿^
No, I am not going to subscribe to the WaPoo.
from today’s GWPF:
Whatever you think of Donald Trump, he clearly has energy policy correct, and all the governing idiots in Europe, Canada and (until recently) Britain have it wrong, and are causing great suffering on their people.
In conclusion, those who advocate global warming alarmism and costly, intermittent “green energy” schemes are scoundrels or imbeciles (or both).
Regards, Allan
Charles Moore: Trump Has Broken The Spell Of Climate Change Mania
The Daily Telegraph, 1 June 2018
Since Mr Trump walked out of the Paris agreement one year ago, it has been fascinating to watch the decline of media interest in “saving the planet”.
Donald Trump imposed punitive tariffs on steel imports exactly a year after he announced that the US would withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement. The two decisions are unrelated, except that both reflect the character of his presidency.
President Trump looks at any international arrangement on any subject – Iran, North Korea, trade, climate – and asks himself whether it is a good deal for America. If he thinks it is not, he starts making trouble. He loves a deal but, unlike some politicians on this side of the water, he sees no point in a bad deal.
When President Trump starts the trouble, he does not necessarily know where it will end. He is, if you like, open-minded; or, if you don’t like, irresponsible. He just wants a result, and will pull back if he thinks he won’t get the right one. In the case of his trade war, he will succeed if his action exposes unfair practices by trade rivals and forces them to change. He will fail if all he does is put up everyone’s prices, including, of course, America’s.
In the case of the Paris process, he has succeeded almost without trying. The answer to the question, “Which major country in the world has most successfully reduced its CO2 emissions?” is, “The United States of America”. US emissions hit a 25-year low last year. This success has nothing to do with the UN caravan, which has rolled on for 30 years, or, indeed, with Mr Trump. It has everything to do with the shale revolution – the triumph of much cleaner fossil fuels. Energy prices are falling.
By contrast, the greenest of the great economic powers, Germany and Japan, have poured money into renewables. They are consuming more coal than before, however, with Japan planning 36 new coal-fired power stations over the next 10 years. Since renewables are not reliable (because of intermittency), Germany must have more coal or lie prostrate before Mr Putin and his gas. Both Germany and Japan are increasing their carbon footprint because they have run away from nuclear. Energy prices are rising. China, after a slowdown, is increasing its CO2 emissions fast once again.
As for “Paris”, this is failing, chiefly for the reason that poorer countries won’t decarbonise unless richer ones pay them stupendous sums. The amount supposedly required to do this, agreed at the Copenhagen conference in 2009, was $100 billion a year, every year, from 2020; but no mechanism could be devised to compel the poor countries to restrict their emissions. At yet another conference in the process, in Bonn last month, the parties broke up without agreement on handing the money across. It is almost impossible to imagine real agreement, because it would be unenforceable.
If you look back, you can see that Copenhagen was the first ebbing of climate panic. Gordon Brown, then prime minister, told us that we had “50 days” to avoid catastrophe. Prince Charles warned delegates that “our planet has reached a point of crisis and we have only seven years before we lose the levers of control”. President Barack Obama, burnished by his freshly awarded Nobel Peace Prize, flew in. Yet all these great men failed to persuade the wretched of the earth to abandon their right to economic growth. “With your pens, you can write our future,” said HRH. The developing countries had the wit not to sign all the same.
Perhaps if Copenhagen had taken place before the global credit crunch of 2008, the world would have swallowed anything. The great paradox of greenery is that it is a boom phenomenon: only when a society is awash with dosh does it start believing it wouldn’t mind getting poorer. By December 2009, however, the dosh had evaporated.
The Paris conference of 2015 put a brave face on the failure of Copenhagen, by parading an agreement. But as the agreement was non-binding, and permitted countries to determine their progress on CO2 reductions unilaterally, it did not alter the reality. The whole UN process originated in the belief that global warming could be prevented only by a global solution. It never found that solution, and so, at Paris, was hoist with its own petard.
The Prince of Wales was proved wrong in 2016, when the “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse” that he had predicted did not show up. Yet he spoke truer than he knew when he made that warning about losing the levers of control. The global warmists lost those levers – if they ever had them – after Paris.
Mr Trump noticed this and felt free to walk away. US participation in the Paris arrangements formally ends the day after the next US presidential election. It will be a brave Democrat who campaigns for the White House on a “Let’s stay in” ticket. What’s in it, after all, for America?
Since Mr Trump walked out, it has been fascinating to watch the decline of media interest in “saving the planet”. There was the most tremendous rumpus when he made his announcement, but the End-Of-The-World-Is-Nigh-Unless feeling that made headlines before Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris, and numerous other gatherings, has gone. This feeling was essential to achieve the “Everybody’s doing it, so we must do it” effect the organisers sought.
The media barely noticed the recent Bonn meeting. I doubt if they will get apocalyptic about the next big show, “COP24” in Katowice, Poland, this December. The Poles are among the nations emerging as “climate realists” – people with their own coal and a very strong wish not to depend on the Russians. Climate-change zealotry is looking like CND after the installation of cruise and Pershing missiles in the 1980s – a bit beside the point.
None of this means that activism will disappear. There will be strong anti-American campaigns and moves to impose ESG (environmental, social and governance) investment principles to make the lives of fossil-fuel companies a misery. In Britain, energy bill levies to subsidise renewables will probably continue to ensure that Theresa May’s famous “just about managing” people are just about screwed simply because they want light and heat in their home.
There will also be plenty more pieces of green showmanship. Here we have Claire Perry, our Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, who wants us “Powering Past Coal” just when we shall probably have to run after the stuff to keep the lights on. In France, Nicolas Hulot, the funky and untranslatable “Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire”, has ordered an end to the internal combustion engine by 2040, despite possessing six cars, a motorboat and a BMW motorbike. But M Hulot’s holiday from reality will not much affect the course of events, and Ms Perry has a lot less power than Rick Perry, Mr Trump’s Energy Secretary.
The great guardians of this attempt at government by global conferencing will continue to make their speeches and write their reports, usually paid for out of public funds. The frameworks and panels, the COPs and ARs, the climate-change organisations that fill 168 pages of Wikipedia, all these will continue, though with diminished status. Priesthoods usually find ways to survive longer than the belief systems they represent. But the recognition is now dawning that, if the planet needs saving, it will not be achieved by these means.
_____________________________________
Great article from The Telegraph! Let’s hope we are seeing he beginning of the end for this CAGW nonsense. Thanks for posting this here, Allan! +10
And so simple, I can understand it.
Hi Phil and Shearer,
I tire of terms such as “clean energy” and “green energy”, emotional words used by scoundrels to enlist and motivate imbeciles.
Most renewable energies are not “clean” or “green” and produce little useful energy, because they are too intermittent, too diffuse and above all are NOT dispatchable.
I provided a rough calculation on wattsup that wind energy is worth about 5% of dispatchable energy, because wind requires almost 100% conventional back-up and is often not available when you need it most.
Years ago I tried to “dumb down” this message so even politicians could understand it:
“Wind power – it doesn’t just blow – it sucks!”
“Solar power – stick it where the Sun don’t shine!”
Regards, Allan 🙂
Pope is right on target,it is going to take a miracle for green energy to ever be useful.
Though why he is praying to the large energy companies is beyond me.
Must be some deep theological reason.
As for this “climate Change” I thought “The will of God” ruled there?
Climate has always changed,ergo it must be part of the design.
Well, finally, it is shown that the anthropogenic global warming scam is at root a religious belief. Toldja.
2018 and there is still a Pope…
Why does Francis so favor tearing down walls, except around the Vatican?
According to the ancient prophecy, this Pope could be the last one. And he certainly seems to be doing his best to ensure that.
Christianity, at its roots, is socialistic. Read some of what Jesus said in the gospels and it is evident. Judiasm, from which it was derived, had some of the same, as in love your neighbor as yourself. St. Peter had to write a letter telling early Christians that if they did not work they could not expect their neighbors to feed them as their putting everything in the common trust was not working out well given that many were taking advantage of their neighbors’ generosity. And so, even back then, common sense eventually ruled the day in the early church. You do what you can but need to do it wisely. Wisdom is, as always, in short supply for many. Godly principles end up being administered by human frailties.
The Bible is also quite explicit about who your ‘neighbour’ is. If Christians actually read the Bible, socialists wouldn’t be able to use it to convince them to support the welfare state.
Hint: it’s not the person who lives next door to you. Or, at least, they’re not your neighbour just because they’re your neighbour.
Seems to me the Church has a long history of co-opting the beliefs and practices of others. Everything from the Egyptian trinity, Christmas trees, to the birth date of Jesus to fall on the winter solstice.
I think the most apt response to your accurate and eloquent post would be……”Amen”.
The reality is if they want to find substitutes, (ones that actually work), for carbon based fuels, remove the barriers to carbon based fuels. They are such an important factor in the creation of substitutes, the more their use is restricted, the more difficult and longer it takes to discover/develop substitutes. In a strict supply/demand model, this doesn’t really make sense. However, taking into consideration the desire of many, very intelligent/creative people, (at least in their vertical), and their desire to profit from the development of substitutes, it does. In a way, the less one restricts the application of fuels, the faster they destroy their demand. Note: IMHO, that is centuries away.
Time for a new Pope or is the Vatican too far gone?
The Pope is a useful idiot of the highest order ( 🙂 )for Globalism, Communism/Socialism, and AGW. One wonders how those ideologies can be so successful in gaining the support of so many influential people. Despite the utter and complete failure of Socialism there’s still a strong ….. and possibly growing …. legion of followers. How’s that work?
i wear red shoes to show off my divinity.
I conjure miracles. i preach humility.
I deal in gospel and divine perjury-
i do! in Vatican Q
it’s great to be me! it’s great to be me!
i get to pontifex the bridge group of the trinity.
it’s great to be meeeee.
The Pope is missing this topic by a mile: He’s already getting a “green miracle” from the oil companies–their significant contribution to the biosphere has caused the greening of the earth, literally!
What more could he ask for, except perhaps an expansion or at least a continuance of that miracle?
Drill, Pope, Drill!
Apparently Nietzsche was wrong, god is not dead he just changed his name to C02
Trump needs to be canonized!
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-electricity/trump-orders-energy-department-to-help-ailing-coal-nuclear-plants-idUSKCN1IX5JS
The Lord hath spoken…
St. Donald
He could make the Nobel Peace Prize great again with Korea. But, a deal with the Vatican?
Will any CEOs turn up? I certainly would not. I suppose a few still believe in fairies
I’m not catholic but
“Please Dear God, give the world another Karol J. Wojtyla/John Paul II!”
These are the times that try men’s souls….
The Pope is apparently unaware of the compelling evidence that CO2 has no significant effect on climate or that thermalization and Hitran indicate that the rising trend of water vapor does.
Water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas, trend has been increasing 1.5% per decade since 1960. That is about twice as fast as calculated from the temperature rise (feedback). The added warmth is welcome but the risk of tragedy from precipitation related flooding is increasing. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
We’ve had the miracle, it’s called the Industrial Revolution powered by coal, oil, gas and nuclear. Long may it continue.
This Pope request is like asking beer companies to stop beer consumption .
Big oil make legally available products that have done more to improve
the quality of life than any other product .
Nuclear till something better comes along but the eco – anarchist even have a problem with it .
Imagine if there were no fossil fuels and some Italian discovered nuclear .
Perhaps the Pope believes “In God we trust, all others pay cash”.
Doesn’t the Pope have the ear of :
C
GOD
2
And can ask It WhatsUpWithThis perfect Planet that It provided mankind with, and useful material such as lovely Fossil Fuels to improve our way of life, enriched by the good green trace gas that was needed to start after billions of year trying and continue essential photosynthesis that meant life could feed off plants?
“The Pope has substantial influence, many millions of people look to the Pope for moral guidance. But even the his holiness cannot bend the Laws of Physics.”
He cannot bend the laws of economics either.
““We’re hopeful that this kind of dialogue can help develop solutions to the dual challenge of managing the risks of climate change while meeting growing demand for energy, which is critical to alleviating poverty and raising living standards in the developing world,””
They are going to continue to live in poverty because they will not be able to afford to buy power for their homes if they are looking at renewable’s.